AMERICAN FARMLAND
DESCRIPTION
FARMLAND
INFORMATION
CENTER
FACT
SHEET
THE
FARMLAND
PROTECTION
TOOLBOX
FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
One Short Street, Suite 2
Northampton, MA 01060
Tel: (413) 586-4593
Fax: (413) 586-9332
Web: www.farmlandinfo.org
NATIONAL OFFICE
1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 331-7300
Fax: (202) 659-8339
Web: www.farmland.org
© February 2008
TRUST · FARMLAND
This fact sheet provides a brief description of the
tools and techniques that state and local govern-
ments are using to protect farmland and support
the economic viability of agriculture. Some of the
techniques result in programs that are enacted
and administered at the state level, others are
used primarily by local governments. Sometimes,
municipal governments adapt and strengthen
state laws to meet unique local needs. Some of
the most effective farmland protection programs
combine regulatory and incentive-based strategies.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT PROGRAMS
Agricultural district programs allow farmers to
form special areas where commercial agriculture
is encouraged and protected. Typically, programs
are authorized by state law and implemented at
the local level. Enrollment in agricultural districts
is voluntary. In exchange for enrollment, farmers
receive a package of benefits, which varies from
state to state.
There are 19 agricultural district programs in
16 states. California, New Jersey and North
Carolina offer farmers two levels of benefits.
Minnesota and Virginia have statewide and local
agricultural district programs. Ohio has two
statewide programs.
Agricultural district programs are intended to
be comprehensive responses to the challenges
facing farmers in developing communities. To
maintain the land base for agriculture, some
agricultural district programs protect farmland
from annexation and eminent domain. Many
also require that state agencies limit construction
of infrastructure, such as roads and sewers, in
agricultural districts. A few offer participants
eligibility for purchase of agricultural conserva-
tion easement programs, and two states include
a right of first refusal in district agreements to
ensure that land will continue to be available
for agriculture.
Agricultural district programs help create a more
secure climate for agriculture by preventing local
governments from passing laws that restrict farm
practices and by providing enhanced protection
from private nuisance lawsuits.
To reduce farm operating expenses, some pro-
grams offer automatic eligibility for differential
The FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER (FIC) is a clearinghouse for information about farmland protection and stewardship.
The FIC is a public/private partnership between the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and American Farmland Trust.
INFORMATION CENTER
assessment or property tax credits to farmers
who enroll.
Some states encourage local planning by limiting
district authorization to jurisdictions with
comprehensive or farmland protection plans,
requiring the adoption of land use regulations to
protect farmland, involving planning bodies in
the development and approval of districts, and
limiting non-farm development in and around
agricultural districts.
AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION
ZONING (APZ)
Agricultural protection zoning refers to county
and municipal zoning ordinances that support
and protect farming by stabilizing the agricul-
tural land base. They designate areas where
farming is the primary land use and discourage
other land uses in those areas. APZ limits the
activities that are permitted in agricultural
zones. The most restrictive regulations prohibit
any uses that might be incompatible with com-
mercial farming.
APZ ordinances restrict the density of residen-
tial development in agricultural zones. Maximum
densities range from one house per 20 acres in
the eastern United States to one house per
640 acres in the West. Exclusive agricultural use
APZ prohibits non-farm residential development.
Non-exclusive APZ ordinances use different
approaches to limit density. Large minimum lot
size APZ sets a minimum lot size for each resi-
dence. For example, some ordinances require
40 acres per dwelling unit. Area-based
allowance APZ uses a formula to achieve a
desired density on the parent tract but allows or
requires houses to be situated on small lots of 1
or 2 acres. The ratio may be fixed or based on a
sliding scale that requires more acreage per
dwelling for larger parcels.
In addition to limits on residential development,
some APZ ordinances also contain limits on sub-
division, site design criteria and right-to-farm
provisions. They may also authorize commercial
agricultural activities, such as farmstands, that
enhance farm profitability. Occasionally, farmers
in an agricultural zone are required to prepare
farm management plans.
A m e r i c a n f a r m l a n d t r u s t · F a r m l a n d
In most states, APZ is implemented at the county
level, although towns and townships may also
have APZ ordinances. Zoning can be modified
through the local political process. Generally, the
enactment of an APZ ordinance results in a
reduction of permitted residential densities in the
new zone. This reduction in density, also called
downzoning, may be controversial because it can
THE reduce the market value of land. A change in
zoning that increases permitted residential
densities is known as upzoning. A change in the
zoning designation of an area—from agricultural
FARMLAND to commercial, for example—is known as re-
zoning. Successful petitions for upzoning and
rezoning in agricultural protection zones often
PROTECTION result in farmland conversion.
APZ stabilizes the agricultural land base by
keeping large tracts of land relatively free of
TOOLBOX non-farm development. This can reduce the like-
lihood of conflicts between farmers and their
non-farming neighbors. Communities can use
APZ to conserve a “critical mass” of agricul-
tural land, enough to keep individual farms
from becoming isolated islands in a sea of resi-
dential neighborhoods. Maintaining a critical
mass of agricultural land can ensure that there
will be enough farms to support local agricul-
tural service businesses. By restricting the devel-
opment potential of large properties, APZ limits
land speculation and helps keep land affordable
to farmers and ranchers. Finally, APZ helps pro-
mote orderly growth by preventing sprawl into
rural areas, and benefits farmers and non-farmers
alike by protecting scenic landscapes and main-
taining open space.
CLUSTER ZONING
Cluster zoning ordinances allow or require
houses to be grouped together on small lots to
protect open land. The portion of the parcel that
is not developed may be restricted by a conser-
vation easement. Cluster developments are also
known as cluster subdivisions, open space or
open land subdivisions.
Cluster subdivisions can keep land available for
agricultural use, but generally they are not
designed to support commercial agriculture. The
protected land is typically owned by developers
or homeowners’ associations. Homeowners may
object to renting their property to farmers and
2
i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t e r
ranchers because of the noise, dust and odors
associated with commercial agricultural produc-
tion. Even if the owners are willing to let the
land be used for agriculture, undeveloped por-
tions of cluster subdivisions may not be large
enough for farmers to operate efficiently, and
access can also be a problem. For these reasons,
cluster zoning has been used more successfully
to preserve open space or to create transitional
areas between farms and residential areas than
to protect farmland.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Comprehensive planning allows counties, cities,
towns and townships to create a vision for their
joint future. Comprehensive plans, which are also
known as master or general plans, outline local
government policies, objectives and decision
guidelines, and serve as blueprints for develop-
ment. They typically identify areas targeted for a
variety of different land uses, including agricul-
ture, forestry, residential, commercial, industrial
and recreational activities. Comprehensive plans
provide a rationale for zoning and promote the
orderly development of public services.
A comprehensive plan can form the foundation
of a local farmland protection strategy by identi-
fying areas to be protected for agricultural use
and areas where growth will be encouraged. It
may include policies designed to conserve natural
resources and provide affordable housing and
adequate public services. Some counties have
used the comprehensive planning process to
encourage their cities and towns to develop desig-
nated urban growth areas or boundaries (UGBs)
and adopt APZ. Others have incorporated the
use of purchase of agricultural conservation ease-
ments (PACE) and transfer of development rights
(TDR) into their master plans.
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
Conservation easements are deed restrictions
that landowners voluntarily place on their land
to protect important resources. They are used
by landowners (“grantors”) to authorize a qual-
ified conservation organization or public agency
(“grantee”) to monitor and enforce the restric-
tions set forth in the agreement.
Forty-nine states have a law pertaining to con-
servation easements. The National Conference
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
adopted the Uniform Conservation Easement Act
in 1981. The Act was designed to serve as a
model for state legislation to allow qualified
public agencies and private conservation organi-
zations to accept, acquire and hold less-than-fee-
simple interests in land for the purposes of
conservation and preservation. Since the Uniform
Act was approved, 23 states have adopted con-
servation easement-enabling legislation based
on this model and 26 states have drafted and
enacted their own conservation easement-
enabling laws.
Agricultural conservation easements are designed
to keep land available for agriculture. Grantors
retain the right to use their land for farming,
ranching and other purposes that do not interfere
with or reduce agricultural viability. They hold
title to their properties and may restrict public
access, sell, give or transfer their property, as
they desire. Producers also remain eligible for
any state or federal farm program for which
they qualified before entering into the conserva-
tion agreement.
Easements may apply to entire parcels of land or
to specific parts of a property. Most easements
are permanent; term easements impose restric-
tions for a limited number of years. All conser-
vation easements legally bind future landowners.
Land protected by conservation easements re-
mains on the tax rolls and is privately owned
and managed. While conservation easements
limit development, they do not affect other
private property rights.
Agricultural conservation easements are a flexible
farmland protection tool. Private land trusts and
other conservation organizations educate farmers
about the tax benefits of donating easements,
and state and local governments have developed
programs to purchase agricultural conservation
easements from landowners. In addition, agricul-
tural conservation easements can be designed to
protect other natural resources, such as wetlands
and wildlife habitat.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
State executive orders are policy statements
issued by governors to accomplish specific
· FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
purposes. They may be advisory or carry the full
force and effect of law, depending on the state.
Governors from at least nine states have issued
executive orders directing state agencies to avoid
contributing to the conversion of agricultural
land. These state-level policies mirror the federal
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), which
was enacted as a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill
to “…minimize the extent to which Federal THE
programs contribute to the unnecessary conver-
sion of farmland to non-agricultural uses….”
Some orders identify a lead agency, typically
the state department of agriculture, to review FARMLAND
state agency activities that may result in farm-
land conversion. These policies may help head
off condemnation and/or may be used to justify PROTECTION
mitigation.
Massachusetts Executive Order 193, for
example, issued in 1991, has been used by the TOOLBOX
Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR)
to negotiate mitigation for farmland loss. The
DAR seeks mitigation for projects involving
state funds and privately funded development
projects subject to the state’s environmental
permitting process. Mitigation options include
permanently protecting equivalent agricultural
land by granting an agricultural preservation
restriction to the Commonwealth or by making
a financial contribution to its farmland protec-
tion program, a municipality or a qualified con-
servation organization.
Other executive orders have created task forces to
investigate farmland conversion and recommend
possible solutions. For example, Ohio’s executive
order created a state-level farmland preservation
task force and ultimately led to the creation of the
state’s easement acquisition program.
State executive orders have the potential to build
public and institutional support for other farm-
land protection programs. By restricting the use
of state funds for projects that would result in
the loss of agricultural land, executive orders
also can influence the actions of local govern-
ments. To the extent that they call attention to
the problem of farmland conversion and facilitate
discussion about solutions, orders can serve as a
building block of a comprehensive farmland pro-
tection program.
3
A m e r i c a n f a r m l a n d t r u s t · F a r m l a n d
FARM VIABILITY PROGRAMS
Farm viability programs provide technical assis-
tance and, in some cases, small grants to
improve the profitability of farm operations.
These programs are administered by departments
of agriculture, extension and/or nonprofit orga-
nizations. Typically, teams of experts work with
operators to evaluate the current operation and
THE develop individualized plans. Funds may also be
available to implement practices or undertake
capital projects identified in the planning
FARMLAND process. Some of the programs include farmland
protection and resource conservation compo-
nents. The Massachusetts Farm Viability
Enhancement program, for example, awards
PROTECTION implementation grants in exchange for term
easements. All viability programs assume that
changes at the farm level—be it better manage-
TOOLBOX ment of existing resources or a new direction in
marketing and/or products offered—can lead to
enhanced farm profitability.
The first two agricultural viability programs
were developed in Massachusetts and Minnesota
in the mid 1990s. Subsequent programs have
been adopted by Connecticut, Maine, New
Jersey, New York and Vermont. In the 2002
Farm Bill, a federal Farm Viability Program was
created, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture
to provide grants to eligible entities with
approved farm viability programs. The federal
program has not yet been implemented.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT LAWS
Growth management laws are designed to con-
trol the timing and phasing of urban growth
and to determine the types of land use that will
be permitted at the local and regional levels. At
least 12 states have laws that control develop-
ment or set planning standards for local govern-
ments. Of these, several address the issue of
farmland conversion.
Growth management laws take a comprehensive
approach to regulating the pattern and rate of
development and set policies to ensure that most
new construction is concentrated within UGBs.
They direct local governments to identify lands
with high resource value and protect them from
development. Some growth management laws
4
i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t e r
require that public services such as water and
sewer lines, roads and schools be in place before
new development is approved. Others direct
local governments to make decisions in accor-
dance with comprehensive plans that are consis-
tent with plans for adjoining areas.
Oregon has one of the nation’s strongest growth
management laws. As a result of the state’s 1972
Land Conservation and Development Act, every
county in Oregon has implemented agricultural
protection zoning, protecting more than 16 mil-
lion acres of agricultural land. Washington’s
Growth Management Act (GMA), passed in
1990 and strengthened in 1991, also is proving
to be an effective farmland protection tool. Since
the enactment of the GMA, most of Washington’s
counties have developed inventories of important
agricultural land, and several have adopted agri-
cultural protection zoning and/or created pur-
chase of agricultural conservation easement and
transfer of development rights programs.
Growth management laws in Hawaii, Vermont,
New Jersey and Maryland have been somewhat
less effective in preventing farmland conversion
and promoting the development of local farm-
land protection programs.
MITIGATION lawS AND POLICIES
Farmland mitigation laws and policies attempt to
compensate for the conversion of agricultural
land to another use by requiring permanent
protection of “comparable” agricultural land. In
1995, city officials in Davis, Calif., enacted an
ordinance that requires developers to perma-
nently protect one acre of farmland for every
acre of agricultural land they convert to other
uses. Developers can place an agricultural conser-
vation easement on farmland in another part of
the city or pay a fee in lieu of direct protection.
King County, Wash., has a “no net loss of farm-
land” policy in its comprehensive plan. The
policy prohibits the conversion of land subject to
APZ unless an equal amount of agricultural land
of the same or better quality is added to the
county’s agricultural production zones.
In 2004, Connecticut lawmakers adopted Public
Act No. 04-222, which requires municipalities,
towns, cities, boroughs and districts to mitigate
A m e r i c a n f a r m l a n d
the loss of active agricultural land taken by
eminent domain. Local governments may either
purchase an agricultural conservation easement
on comparable land within its jurisdiction OR
pay a mitigation fee to the state’s farmland pro-
tection program to protect similar land elsewhere
in the state subject to the approval of the state’s
farmland preservation program and the
Commissioner of Agriculture.
PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROGRAMS (PACE)
Purchase of agricultural conservation easement
programs pay farmers to protect their land from
development. PACE is known by a variety of
other terms, the most common being purchase
of development rights (PDR).
Landowners voluntarily sell agricultural conser-
vation easements to a government agency or
private conservation organization. The agency or
organization usually pays them the difference
between the value of the land for agriculture and
the value of the land for its “highest and best
use,” which is generally residential or commer-
cial development.
Easement value is most often determined by pro-
fessional appraisals, but may also be established
through the use of a numerical scoring system
that evaluates the suitability for agriculture of a
piece of property. Twenty-seven states have
authorized state-level PACE programs and inde-
pendent local programs operate in 18 states.
State and local governments can play a variety of
roles in the creation and implementation of PACE
programs. Some states have passed legislation
that allows local governments to create PACE
programs. Others have enacted PACE programs
that are implemented, funded and administered
by state agencies. Several states work coopera-
tively with local governments to purchase ease-
ments. A few states have appropriated money
for use by local governments and private non-
profit organizations. Finally, some local govern-
ments have created independent PACE programs
in the absence of any state action.
Cooperative state–local PACE programs have
some advantages over independent state or local
t r u s t · F a r m l a n d i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t e r
programs. Cooperative programs allow states to
set broad policies and criteria for protecting
agricultural land, while county or township gov-
ernments select the farms that they believe are
most critical to the viability of local agricultural
economies and monitor the land once the ease-
ments are in place. Involving two levels of
government generally increases the funding
available for PACE. Finally, cooperative pro- THE
grams increase local government investment in
farmland protection.
PACE programs allow farmers to cash in a fair FARMLAND
percentage of the equity in their land, thus cre-
ating a financially competitive alternative to
selling land for non-agricultural uses. Permanent
easements prevent development that would
PROTECTION
effectively foreclose the possibility of farming.
Removing the development potential from farm-
land generally reduces its future market value. TOOLBOX
This may help facilitate farm transfer to the
children of farmers and make the land more
affordable to beginning farmers and others who
want to buy it for agricultural purposes. PACE
provides landowners with liquid capital that can
enhance the economic viability of individual
farming operations and help perpetuate family
tenure on the land. Finally, PACE gives commu-
nities a way to share the costs of protecting
agricultural land with farmers.
RIGHT-TO-FARM LAWS
Every state in the nation has at least one right-
to-farm law. State right-to-farm laws are
intended to protect farmers and ranchers from
nuisance lawsuits. Some statutes protect farms
and ranches from lawsuits filed by neighbors
who moved in after the agricultural operation
was established. Others protect farmers who use
generally accepted agricultural and management
practices and comply with federal and state
laws. Many right-to-farm laws also prohibit
local governments from enacting ordinances
that would impose unreasonable restrictions on
agriculture.
State right-to-farm laws are a state policy asser-
tion that commercial agriculture is an important
activity. The statutes also help support the eco-
nomic viability of farming by discouraging
5
A m e r i c a n f a r m l a n d t r u s t · F a r m l a n d
neighbors from filing lawsuits against agricul-
tural operations. Beyond these protections, it is
unclear whether right-to-farm laws help main-
tain the land base.
At the same time, local governments around the
nation are enacting their own right-to-farm laws
to strengthen and clarify language in state laws.
Local activity has been encouraged by model
THE local ordinances developed by state agriculture
agencies (e.g., New Jersey’s State Agriculture
Development Committee) and/or farm advocacy
FARMLAND groups (e.g., California Farm Bureau).
Local right-to-farm ordinances can serve as a
formal policy statement that agriculture is a
PROTECTION valuable part of the county or town economy
and culture. Some require that a notice be
placed on the deed to all properties in agricul-
tural areas, cautioning potential buyers that
TOOLBOX they may experience noise, dust, odors and
other inconveniences due to farming and ranch-
ing operations. At a minimum, local ordinances
help educate residents about the needs of com-
mercial agriculture and reassure farmers that
their communities support them.
TAX RELIEF
Circuit Breaker Tax Relief Credits
Circuit breaker tax programs offer tax credits to
offset farmers’ property tax bills. Four states
have circuit breaker programs. In Michigan,
Wisconsin and New York, farmers may receive
state income tax credits based on the amount of
their real property tax bill and their income. In
Iowa, farmers receive school tax credits from
their local governments when school taxes
exceed a statutory limit. The counties and
municipalities are then reimbursed from a state
fund. In Michigan, landowners who wish to
receive circuit breaker credits must sign 10-year
restrictive agreements with their local govern-
ments to prevent farmland conversion. In
Wisconsin, counties and towns must adopt plans
and enact agricultural protection zoning to
ensure that tax credits are targeted to productive
agricultural land.
Like differential assessment laws, circuit breaker
tax relief credits reduce the amount farmers are
required to pay in taxes. The key differences
between the programs are that most circuit
6
i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t e r
breaker programs are based on farmer income
and are funded by state governments.
Differential Assessment
Differential assessment laws direct local govern-
ments to assess agricultural land at its value for
agriculture, instead of its full fair market value,
which is generally higher. Differential assessment
laws are enacted by states and implemented at
the local level. With a few exceptions, the cost is
borne at the local level.
Differential assessment programs help ensure the
economic viability of agriculture. Since high
taxes reduce profits, and lack of profitability is a
major motivation for farmers to sell land for
development, differential assessment laws also
protect the land base. Finally, these laws help
correct inequities in the property tax system.
Owners of farmland demand fewer local public
services than residential landowners, but they pay
a disproportionately high share of local property
taxes. Differential assessment helps bring farm-
ers’ property taxes in line with what it actually
costs local governments to provide services to
the land.
Every state except Michigan has a differential
assessment law. Differential assessment is also
known as current use assessment, current use
valuation, farm use valuation, use assessment
and use value assessment.
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS (TDR)
Transfer of development rights programs allow
landowners to transfer the right to develop one
parcel of land to a different parcel of land.
Generally established through local zoning ordi-
nances, TDR programs can protect farmland
by shifting development from agricultural areas
to areas planned for growth. When the develop-
ment rights are transferred from a piece of
property, the land is typically restricted with a
permanent agricultural conservation easement.
Buying development rights generally allows
landowners to build at a higher density than
ordinarily permitted by the base zoning in desig-
nated receiving areas. TDR is known as transfer
of development credits in California and in some
parts of New Jersey.
A m e r i c a n f a r m l a n d
TDR is used by counties, cities, towns and
townships. Two regional TDR programs were
developed to protect the pine barrens of Long
Island, N.Y., and New Jersey’s Pinelands. TDR
programs are distinct from PACE programs
because they involve the private market. Many
TDR transactions are between private landowners
and developers. Local governments approve
transactions and monitor easements. A few
jurisdictions have created “TDR banks” that
buy development rights with public funds and
sell them to developers and other private
landowners.
Some states have enacted special legislation
authorizing local governments to create TDR
programs. In 2004 the New Jersey Legislature
enacted the State Transfer of Development
Rights Act. The State TDR Act enables muni-
cipalities to develop and participate in intra-
municipal and inter-municipal programs. This
law also formalized the planning process re-
quired to enact TDR and mandated a list of
planning documents required prior to adopting a
TDR ordinance. The Act also authorized the
State TDR Bank Board to provide planning
grants to communities developing programs.
Other states have consistently refused to give
local governments such authorization. Counties
and towns have created TDR programs without
specific state authorizing legislation; municipal
governments must work with their attorneys to
determine whether other provisions of state law
allow them to use TDR.
American Farmland Trust works to stop the loss of productive farmland
and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.
t r u s t · F a r m l a n d i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t e r
TDR programs are designed to accomplish
the same purposes as publicly funded PACE
programs. They prevent non-agricultural devel-
opment of farmland, reduce the market value of
protected farms and provide farmland owners
with liquid capital that can be used to enhance
farm viability.
TDR programs also offer a potential solution to
the political and legal problems that many com-
THE
munities face when they try to restrict develop-
ment of farmland. Landowners often oppose
agricultural protection zoning and other land use FARMLAND
regulations because they can reduce equity. APZ
can benefit farmers by preventing urbanization,
but it may also reduce the fair market value of
their land. When more restrictive land use regu-
PROTECTION
lations are enacted in conjunction with a TDR
program, communities can maintain equity for
landowners. For example, development rights TOOLBOX
for transfer may be allocated based on the
“underlying” or prior zoning.
For additional information on
While dozens of local jurisdictions around the
farmland protection and stewardship,
country allow the use of TDR, only a few of
contact the Farmland Information
them have used the technique successfully to
protect farmland. TDR programs are complex Center. The FIC offers a staffed
and must be carefully designed to achieve their answer service, online library,
goal. Communities that have been most success- program monitoring, fact sheets
ful in using TDR are characterized by steady and other educational materials.
growth, with the political will to maintain and
implement strong zoning ordinances and plan-
www.farmlandinfo.org
ning departments that have the time, knowledge
and resources to administer complex land use
(800) 370-4879
regulations.
7
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST · FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER

FARMLAND PROTECTION ACTIVITY BY STATE

Agricultural Conservation Circuit Differential PACE Right-to-Farm* TDR

State Districts Easements Breaker Assessment

Alabama   
Alaska   
Arizona    
Arkansas   
California      
Colorado     
Connecticut     
Delaware      
Florida     
Georgia     
Hawaii    
Idaho    
Illinois     
Indiana   
Iowa     
Kansas   
Kentucky      
Louisiana   
Maine     
Maryland      
Massachusetts       
Michigan   
Minnesota      
Mississippi   
Missouri   
Montana     
Nebraska   
Nevada    
New Hampshire     
New Jersey      
New Mexico    
New York       
North Carolina     
North Dakota  
Ohio     
Oklahoma   
Oregon    
Pennsylvania      
Rhode Island    
South Carolina    
South Dakota   
Tennessee    
Texas   
Utah      
Vermont     
Virginia      
Washington     
West Virginia    
Wisconsin      
Wyoming   

TOTAL 16 49 4 49 32 50 24
 State level
 Local level
* A number of local jurisdictions also have enacted right-to-farm ordinances. We do not have a complete inventory.